MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341815120

Study on Final Felling Age of Chinese Fir Plantation With Different Site Index in Guangxi

2016· article· en· W2341815120 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Guimei Chen, Cen Ju-yan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicRemote Sensing and Land Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFellingSite indexIndex (typography)ForestryVolume (thermodynamics)GeographyMathematicsAgroforestryEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on 156 analytic trees’ samples from 128 plots of Chinese fir plantation in Guangxi and 269,810 Chinese fir plantation subcompartments’ data from Guangxi forest management inventory, we researched the growth process of the average tree of Chinese fir plantation with different site index and the rule of density changes of Chinese fir plantation. By optimizing model structure, we established the model of volume growth and the model of technical volume ratio of Chinese fir plantation with different site index and calculated the technical volume and the present value of pure income of each age`s Chinese fir plantation, regarding the maximum present value of annual average net benefits as the judging index of economic maturity age and the economic maturity age as the final felling age. Results show that the final felling ages of Chinese fir plantation with different site index have small difference. The final felling age of Chinese fir plantation with different site index—12, 14, 16, 18, 20 is: 23 years, 23 years, 22 years, 22 years, 23 years, respectively.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.004
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in natural science/Advances in natural sciencesSame topicRemote Sensing and Land UseFrench-language works237,207